ACO Publish 2010 Le Mans Regulations - Page 2

markw63 · 27 Aug 2009, 06:47 (Ref:2529007)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

Seems a pretty clear cut case of the ACO wanting to add drag to the cars in order to slow them down, nothing more.

Totally agree, quite a simple easy way of adding drag and reducing flow out of the rear quarter.
I am however more interested and concerned about potential changes to the front bodywork and diffuser area's, this could potentially be trickier and more expensive to re-design should the regs be more than just a clarification of existing rules.

What is happening with the P2 engine regs? Are they now set in stone as purely GT2 engines? I believe they are but its all gone a bit quiete since the announcement at Le Mans.

scoff · 27 Aug 2009, 07:24 (Ref:2529026)

Any chance that when we have some more drag and smaller engines in 2011 that we might ever get rid of those chicanes from 2012?

markw63 · 27 Aug 2009, 09:09 (Ref:2529097)

Not likely, and by 2012 the cars will be quicker anyhow, so the ACO will be thinking of yet more ways to slow us down, just in time for us to think of ways to speed us back up again and recoup the 5 seconds a lap we have just lost!!!!

Purist · 27 Aug 2009, 22:00 (Ref:2529589)

I suspect the new rules for 2011 will take significantly more than just 5 seconds off the current pace. They probably will want to take 15-20 seconds off, or even more than that possibly. Only 10 seconds still leaves us just barely above the 3:30 "limit" at Le Mans.

The chicanes are not likely to ever disappear, since the FIA has a maximum recommended length for straightaways of 2.0km. The full Mulsanne is 5.54km.

Gingers4Justice · 28 Aug 2009, 11:52 (Ref:2529864)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purist

The chicanes are not likely to ever disappear, since the FIA has a maximum recommended length for straightaways of 2.0km. The full Mulsanne is 5.54km.

Thats only "recommended", though. Could they not just have one chicane in the middle?

HORNDAWG · 28 Aug 2009, 13:56 (Ref:2529924)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Thats only "recommended", though. Could they not just have one chicane in the middle?

It's 'recommended' in the sense of, that is how it will be done, or you will not recieve a FIA certification of the track!

L.P.

Gingers4Justice · 28 Aug 2009, 18:09 (Ref:2530053)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

It's 'recommended' in the sense of, that is how it will be done, or you will not recieve a FIA certification of the track!

L.P.

Oh. Well, they could put one chicane in the middle, and pretend the Mulsanne kink is a corner. Sorted

HORNDAWG · 28 Aug 2009, 18:19 (Ref:2530059)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Oh. Well, they could put one chicane in the middle, and pretend the Mulsanne kink is a corner. Sorted

No, a kink is a kink, not a corner. It misses by several degrees.

L.P.

Gingers4Justice · 28 Aug 2009, 20:50 (Ref:2530120)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

No, a kink is a kink, not a corner. It misses by several degrees.

L.P.

Normally, the adition of a smiley would be seen as a point not entirely serious - so please, just let me dream, I know what a kink is, and I've seen the Mulsanne Kink in the flesh enough times to know that its not a corner.

johntt · 28 Aug 2009, 21:12 (Ref:2530126)

Quote:

Originally Posted by markw63

Not likely, and by 2012 the cars will be quicker anyhow, so the ACO will be thinking of yet more ways to slow us down, just in time for us to think of ways to speed us back up again and recoup the 5 seconds a lap we have just lost!!!!

And therin lies some of the beauty of motorsport, out-foxing the rules

HORNDAWG · 13 Nov 2009, 17:54 (Ref:2581494)

The entire rule set should be published in the next few weeks. Be interesting to see them in their entirety.

L.P.

**joeb** · 13 Nov 2009, 23:01 (Ref:2581641)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

The entire rule set should be published in the next few weeks. Be interesting to see them in their entirety.

L.P.

Will this just be the 2010 or will some hints towards 2011 be given?

MulsanneMike · 14 Nov 2009, 02:47 (Ref:2581699)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeb

Will this just be the 2010 or will some hints towards 2011 be given?

The ACO has dragged their feet on the 2010 and 2011 regulations something fierce. The draft regulations have been out now for well over a month and the ACO has received feedback. Yet weeks have gone by and nothing has been set in stone. And this is all putting 2011 into jeopardy as the decisions for 2011 are being put to the various corporate boards now. Can't propose anything if there aren't any regulations. Suffice to say, this isn't going down well with anyone at all, especially those looking to build new cars. The ACO has never been able to look past their one race. They need to realize the season starts in January for the WDWT and the first race is actually in March, not June.

chernaudi · 14 Nov 2009, 07:37 (Ref:2581759)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MulsanneMike

The ACO has dragged their feet on the 2010 and 2011 regulations something fierce. The draft regulations have been out now for well over a month and the ACO has received feedback. Yet weeks have gone by and nothing has been set in stone. And this is all putting 2011 into jeopardy as the decisions for 2011 are being put to the various corporate boards now. Can't propose anything if there aren't any regulations. Suffice to say, this isn't going down well with anyone at all, especially those looking to build new cars. The ACO has never been able to look past their one race. They need to realize the season starts in January for the WDWT and the first race is actually in March, not June.

Could this be why IMSA pushed back the Sebring WDWT test back to late Feburary instead of January? After all, IMSA needs to see the ACO's rules before they make tweaks to their proposed package.

deggis · 14 Nov 2009, 19:48 (Ref:2582012)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purist

The chicanes are not likely to ever disappear, since the FIA has a maximum recommended length for straightaways of 2.0km. The full Mulsanne is 5.54km.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gingers4Justice

Thats only "recommended", though. Could they not just have one chicane in the middle?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HORNDAWG

It's 'recommended' in the sense of, that is how it will be done, or you will not recieve a FIA certification of the track!

Indeed, altough it may not even be "recommended":

"The maximum permitted length for straight sections of track is 2km."

That is what is said in Appendix O of International Sporting Code (fia.com).

Even if this rule no longer existed... well, ACO is always so very concerned about safety...

MulsanneMike · 14 Nov 2009, 23:07 (Ref:2582097)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chernaudi

Could this be why IMSA pushed back the Sebring WDWT test back to late Feburary instead of January? After all, IMSA needs to see the ACO's rules before they make tweaks to their proposed package.

Well pushing WDWT back doesn't help that matter as it would give teams even less time to adjust to any IMSA changes.

chernaudi · 15 Nov 2009, 08:25 (Ref:2582199)

Are you saying that maybe it's time for IMSA to do just as they did in 1982 when the ACO and FIA came up with the Group C rules and make up their own rules package? Because I can see things really going that way if the ACO keeps this up. Audi have stated that they don't know what they're doing next year as far as ACO racing in general until the rules are released, and Acura is in the same vein as far as their exact ALMS plans.

Or is this another move to benefit Peugeot-oh, yeah, they don't know exactly what they're doing next year either aside from perhaps Sebring and Le Mans.

The Badger · 15 Nov 2009, 12:37 (Ref:2582251)

Why dont they just bring back the fuel formula like Group C ?

It worked , was green and let the engine manufacturers do what they liked , as long as they could stay within the formula that is .

isynge · 15 Nov 2009, 13:27 (Ref:2582260)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Badger

Why dont they just bring back the fuel formula like Group C ?

It worked , was green and let the engine manufacturers do what they liked , as long as they could stay within the formula that is .

It is amazing how the passage of time means we look back at the fuel consumption formula with fondness. At the time it was universally hated, with races being described as economy runs, results due to people running out of fuel called farcical, and derisory comments being made about 'top gear racing'.

That said, it did make for some good racing, it opened up the prospect of a variety of approaches, and in the current climate it would be a fantastic way of making racing relevant - especially if you put carbon/km into the equation, which would start to neatly offset the natural MPG advantage a diesel would have.

deggis · 15 Nov 2009, 14:28 (Ref:2582285)

But then ACO can't decide which technology wins.

**joeb** · 15 Nov 2009, 16:31 (Ref:2582333)

Quote:

Originally Posted by deggis

But then ACO can't decide which technology wins.

hahaha, that's true. But I don't envy the position the ACO is in, trying to make rules that are fair and make the manufacturers happy. That said, they are only hurting the sport and teeing people off by dragging their feet on the announcement of rules.

NaBUru38 · 16 Nov 2009, 00:20 (Ref:2582529)

Quote:

Originally Posted by deggis

But then ACO can't decide which technology wins.

Why should they? The best technologies should win by themselves. (I can't catch whether you agree on this, deggis.)

deggis · 16 Nov 2009, 00:37 (Ref:2582542)

Just a reference to to current situation. Reinvented Group C would be great.

NaBUru38 · 16 Nov 2009, 01:06 (Ref:2582557)

Quote:

Originally Posted by deggis

Just a reference to to current situation.

Roger that.

Félix · 16 Nov 2009, 04:18 (Ref:2582600)

Quote:

Originally Posted by isynge

It is amazing how the passage of time means we look back at the fuel consumption formula with fondness. At the time it was universally hated, with races being described as economy runs, results due to people running out of fuel called farcical, and derisory comments being made about 'top gear racing'.

That was when fuel injection was new and nobody had a handle on it but Porsche with an archaic system in the first few years of the formula.

Nowadays, everything has an advanced fuel injection system, with plenty of control on every variable and even a properly working knob on the wheel to change fuel map. And a Group C-like formula would save all the different engines that have always been possible in endurance racing and would screwing the engine regs much harder for the ACO. The list of solutions that are about to be outlawed is very long and includes every traditional solution used in the sport (from US V8s and their torque to the glorious V12s), but I just realized it also makes Direct Injection development on an atmospheric prototype engine very difficult and very irrelevant to road car designs. Porsche did it but they don't sell any engine revving past 10000rpm and the system was so pointy that it's become useless with the annual change in inlet restrictor diameter.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[LM24] Le Mans 2007: Will it discredit the ACO?	canam	24 Heures du Mans	94	14 May 2007 19:53
[LM24] Could the ACO penalise GT1's at Le Mans?	Bentley03	24 Heures du Mans	26	24 May 2005 21:17
ACO Forms for Le Mans 2005	Ty Nicholson	Marshals Forum	21	30 Apr 2005 13:56
[Memorabilia] ACO (Le Mans) CDRom	Aysedasi	Armchair Enthusiast	11	7 Dec 2001 17:20
[LM24] Le Mans (ACO) CDRom	Aysedasi	24 Heures du Mans	1	24 Oct 2001 22:24